March 8, 2011

kathe_kollwitz Sythe

The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) released its 2011 State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA) report this week, just in time for today's International Women's Day. The report illustrates how better investments in female farmers would prevent malnourishment in 100-150 million people, because of the ways women are likely to allocate resources in a food-shortage-threatened world.

"The report shows the hard economic numbers behind a message we've known for a long time, which is that women are crucial for agricultural security," here

March 4, 2011

An MSNBC poll is asking “Do you believe genetically modified foods should be labeled?”

41,000 people have participated as of today with 96% answering “Yes. It’s an ethical issue — consumers should be informed so they can make a choice.”You can vote here

One argument used to resist genetically modified organism/genetically engineered (GMO/GE) labeling sounds an awful lot like nanny-state thinking: “We must not allow labeling of GMOs because, given a choice, people would make the wrong choice.”.... Forbes published a column insisting that we must not have GMO labeling. Why? Because then people would avoid such products.Take a moment to absorb that interesting proposition, from a magazine which is supposed to be about business and economics. Not merely economics, but free market economics.Can there be a “free market” when consumers are denied the right to make their own choices?Can there be a “free market” when taxpayer subsidies are used to shore up a product which consumers don't want to buy?GMO crops would have no place in an agriculture economy based on sound, free-market principles. As in, cost of production should not exceed market-value of end-product.Fact: GMO crops cost more to grow than they are worth in the market.

"Monsanto is not aware of any reliable studies that demonstrate Roundup Ready® crops are more susceptible to certain diseases or that the application of glyphosate to Roundup Ready crops increases a plant’s susceptibility to diseases".

Yet this statement can be shown as evidently false by following the (reliable) research listed here:

Ottawa - Today in the House of Commons, New Democratic Party Fisheriesand Oceans Critic Fin Donnelly tabled a motion asking for transparencyand more study before genetically modified (GM) Atlantic salmon areapproved for human consumption.

US company AquaBounty has genetically modified a faster growingAtlantic salmon by inserting a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmonand genetic material from ocean pout.

AquaBounty has asked the US Food and Drug Administration to approvethe GM Atlantic salmon for human consumption but the status of anyrequests for approvals from the company to the Canadian government areunknown because our federal departments refuse to disclose thisinformation.

“Why won’t the government tell us if they are doing a riskassessment?” asked Leo Broderick of PEI and Vice-Chair of the Councilof Canadians, “AquaBounty wants to supply the market with geneticallymodified salmon eggs from PEI but Canadians have no clue if thecompany has asked for approval here.”

AquaBounty is not planning to produce GM salmon in the US but isinstead proposing to produce all the GM salmon eggs on Prince EdwardIsland and then ship the eggs for grow out and processing in Panama,for selling into the US consumer market.

Today’s motion asks the government to explain its regulations and toset up a system to notify Canadians about any requests for approvaland approval decisions. The motion also asks the government to“prevent the introduction of genetically modified salmon destined forhuman consumption into the Canadian food system until furtherscientific studies are concluded by the relevant departments todetermine the impact of genetically modified salmon on human healthand on the health of marine species, ecosystems and habitats.”

“We call on all Members of Parliament to support the motion. It is arequest for basic transparency,” said Lucy Sharratt of the CanadianBiotechnology Action Network. "This cloak of secrecy is unjustifiableand, frankly, ridiculous."

“DFO’s own scientists have acknowledged that genetically modifiedsalmon pose a real risk to our wild fish stocks,” said CatherineStewart of Living Oceans Society in B.C. “Any debate on this issue,any scientific research informing the debate, must be made availableto all concerned citizens.”

Sixty fisheries and oceans conservation, environmental and socialjustice groups released a joint statement in December 6, 2010,opposing GM fish.